I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

M.[/quote]

Although I would be hesitant to categorize my own understanding of Christianity, Catholic or Orthodox, as being much beyond the 8th grade level, if even that much, I say to you...

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

M.

Although I would be hesitant to categorize my own understanding of Christianity, Catholic or Orthodox, as being much beyond the 8th grade level, if even that much, I say to you...

Amen, amen, amen!!!!!!![/quote]

Well that is another excellent part of the point. IF believing and understanding were all THAT crucial to salvation then 99% of us are screwed...so to speak crudely. NOBODY can fully grasp the truths of revelation and the more we learn it should be apparent to us the less we know. So it is not about having Faith in Factoids, for heaven's sake! It is about believing the Church is the body of Christ and that to the best of her ability she passes on the truths of revelation, the Truths of the Word and the Word is Necessary for Salvation....well...at least that's how I learnt it.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

M.

Although I would be hesitant to categorize my own understanding of Christianity, Catholic or Orthodox, as being much beyond the 8th grade level, if even that much, I say to you...

Amen, amen, amen!!!!!!!

Well that is another excellent part of the point. IF believing and understanding were all THAT crucial to salvation then 99% of us are screwed...so to speak crudely. NOBODY can fully grasp the truths of revelation and the more we learn it should be apparent to us the less we know. So it is not about having Faith in Factoids, for heaven's sake! It is about believing the Church is the body of Christ and that to the best of her ability she passes on the truths of revelation, the Truths of the Word and the Word is Necessary for Salvation....well...at least that's how I learnt it.

M.[/quote]

Couldn't agree with you more!

Speaking solely for myself, it seems the more I "learn" the more I know how little I know. I hope and pray that my faith, at least, grows, although I certainly have my moments (even days or longer!) when it seems my faith just flies out the window, so to speak.

Speaking solely for myself, it seems the more I "learn" the more I know how little I know. I hope and pray that my faith, at least, grows, although I certainly have my moments (even days or longer!) when it seems my faith just flies out the window, so to speak.

Speaking solely for myself, it seems the more I "learn" the more I know how little I know. I hope and pray that my faith, at least, grows, although I certainly have my moments (even days or longer!) when it seems my faith just flies out the window, so to speak.

In all of the time that I've presented these texts I have NEVER EVER EVER said that they "prove" the Immaculate Conception. So please go over your response with that fact in mind.

You've obviously forgotten this thread, EM, and related ones:

Forgotten?...no. I've dismissed most of it as shuckin' and jivin'

So you have learned from the Orthodox response to the Vatican's most solemn pronouncements.

Or were you referring to the texts your ecclesiastical community composed to please your masters in the Vatican (or did they compose them for you)?

« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 01:43:50 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isa, here's the hymnography for the Eastern Catholic feast of the Conception of the Mother of God:

Quote

It is fitting that the Queen of heaven and earth,who is more precious than the Cherubim,and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim,be conceived and remain immaculate as the angels,so that they who are servants of the Lordcan boast of their own Queen, the Mother of God.Glory and praise to the Lord who willed it so,the Creator of all things.

It is fitting that the unique and chosen womanbe conceived without sin,and the power of Satan is now taken away;for the Mother of God will never bow before him.Glory and praise to the Lord who willed it so,the Creator of all things.

It is fitting that the Second Evebe created and remain without sinin the manner of the Second Adam;for the rebirth of mankind now takes place,just as the fall came through the first Adam and the first Eve.Christ has renewed all through his new birth,and it was Mary that gave birth to Him.Glory and praise to the Lord who willed it so,the Creator of all things.

Glory… Now…

Before the nativity of the Son of God,it was fitting for the Fatherto bestow the most pure conception upon the Mother of God,who is betrothed of the Holy Spirit,that she might be filled with heavenly giftsin a manner beyond all other creatures.Glory and praise to the Lord who willed it so,the Creator of all things.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My issue has always been with the IC: "why stop there"? If the blemish or stain or any other such word of original sin (or whatever you would like to call it) affected Christ b/c it affected the Virgin Mary, and so we can't have that, so we make the Theotokos without sin....then why stop there?

Perhaps i'm being too simplistic, but I know I need an answer to that question before I can move on with any kind of more intense conversation.

The error that you make is presuming that the definition of the sinlessness of the Mother of God, from the moment of her becoming a person, is a definition born of necessity. It is not. It clearly says it is not in the apostolic constitution.

The gift of sinlessness is a free gift from God to the woman that would carry God in her womb and give him her flesh. Period. That is all there is to that part of it.

Just give that as much thought for as long as you've given your original idea and see what you come up with then...not tonight...not tomorrow...later.

The Immaculate Conception is no more necessary than any of God's other gifts freely given.

That's not what your doctors taught "potuit, decuit ergo fecit."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Again bringing it to my point, if it's just a gift, how is it dogmatic? How does that gift necessitate salvation?

It depends on how you understand what is "necessary to salvation"....

Most people understand it as they understand air being necessary for them to live...or food...or water...all taken separately and individually.

As I was taught something being "necessary for salvation" is a reference to one's relationship to the Church and the Church's relationship to the universal truth of revelation, from Tradition and Scripture. So it really is a reference to the wholeness or catholicity of Church teaching with each element being important in either being central to or supportive of the truths of salvation, the truths of revelation.

It is not a juridical term at all. Dogma are pieces of the truth that are defined more clearly that other parts of doctrine in order to help make them more clear to the faithful. That is their function, although they are seen as some sort of greater truth-lesser truth...or something. I really do not understand how most of you folks here see these things actually.

I have attached my notes from Seminary in regards to Dogma & Dogmatics. They tend to jump around a lot b/c the professor jumped around a lot. To me though, it's a point to start. Obviously it would seem to me to be a much bigger conversation now that we are truly delving into it. Do you WANT to delve into it? Because if you don't, i'm not going to waste your time.

Quote

The way you talk about it is very foreign to me. The fact that you insist you are right ranges my emotional responses somewhere between annoyance and amusement.

Right back at you. On all fronts. The way that this information is being presented, what it is saying, the language that is being used, are completely foreign to me. I honestly thought I was not insisting anything, but rather asking & therefore approaching the question from what I know. If you see that as an insistence, that's your personal choice. I see a question as always leaving the door open to being wrong, or seeing the issue differently. That's not insistence to me.

Quote

The only thing that gets me is that the schism is kept alive active and bleeding by attitudes that are fed by this kind of crippled understanding...not just on the Orthodox side. I hear the same kind of senseless nonsense coming from Catholics who have no experience of Orthodoxy.

It's also kept alive & bleeding by real life issues as well, such as the 4th Crusade & the sack of Constantinople. There have also been great bridges made such as the revoking of the Anathemas. I'm trying to make bridges at least for myself b/c that's the only thing I have 100% control over....me & my understanding. Just trying to better myself in this regard with my Roman Catholic brethren. If you see that as keeping something bleeding & bad attitudes...that's your choice.

I will only add this as an additional thought: We were taught in seminary that Dogmas are limited to what the ecumenical councils have said about HS, Jesus Christ and God Himself. If we have that understanding, this would make the more modern interpretation of the IC more difficult.

Again bringing it to my point, if it's just a gift, how is it dogmatic? How does that gift necessitate salvation?

It depends on how you understand what is "necessary to salvation"....

Most people understand it as they understand air being necessary for them to live...or food...or water...all taken separately and individually.

As I was taught something being "necessary for salvation" is a reference to one's relationship to the Church and the Church's relationship to the universal truth of revelation, from Tradition and Scripture. So it really is a reference to the wholeness or catholicity of Church teaching with each element being important in either being central to or supportive of the truths of salvation, the truths of revelation.

It is not a juridical term at all. Dogma are pieces of the truth that are defined more clearly that other parts of doctrine in order to help make them more clear to the faithful. That is their function, although they are seen as some sort of greater truth-lesser truth...or something. I really do not understand how most of you folks here see these things actually.

I have attached my notes from Seminary in regards to Dogma & Dogmatics. They tend to jump around a lot b/c the professor jumped around a lot. To me though, it's a point to start. Obviously it would seem to me to be a much bigger conversation now that we are truly delving into it. Do you WANT to delve into it? Because if you don't, i'm not going to waste your time.

Quote

The way you talk about it is very foreign to me. The fact that you insist you are right ranges my emotional responses somewhere between annoyance and amusement.

Right back at you. On all fronts. The way that this information is being presented, what it is saying, the language that is being used, are completely foreign to me. I honestly thought I was not insisting anything, but rather asking & therefore approaching the question from what I know. If you see that as an insistence, that's your personal choice. I see a question as always leaving the door open to being wrong, or seeing the issue differently. That's not insistence to me.

Quote

The only thing that gets me is that the schism is kept alive active and bleeding by attitudes that are fed by this kind of crippled understanding...not just on the Orthodox side. I hear the same kind of senseless nonsense coming from Catholics who have no experience of Orthodoxy.

It's also kept alive & bleeding by real life issues as well, such as the 4th Crusade & the sack of Constantinople. There have also been great bridges made such as the revoking of the Anathemas. I'm trying to make bridges at least for myself b/c that's the only thing I have 100% control over....me & my understanding. Just trying to better myself in this regard with my Roman Catholic brethren. If you see that as keeping something bleeding & bad attitudes...that's your choice.

I will only add this as an additional thought: We were taught in seminary that Dogmas are limited to what the ecumenical councils have said about HS, Jesus Christ and God Himself. If we have that understanding, this would make the more modern interpretation of the IC more difficult.

Yes. Let's go on. Where do you want to begin? I will try to follow your lead. Do you want to begin another thread? I am very interested in the topic of dogmatics and systematics and also I am a strong believer in the Immaculate Conception, not because I am commanded to be but because after long struggle, I have come to understand it and see how it "fits" in the wholeness of Catholic teaching...and especially after reading the holy fathers of the east, and the festal homilies and liturgies. So I don't seek to defend or be apologetic for the teaching but to share with you something that is with me at all times in prayer and in living the life of faith.

So forgive me for being hard and brittle here with you, as much as it seems I have been...It is something dear to my heart...both topics as well as the end to the schism.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

Why am I not a Muslim? For the same reasons I am not a Roman Catholic.[/quote]

But if avoiding so-called confusion was the criterion (or reason) for being Orthodox you could be many, many other things just as easily. Even Catholic. If you were willing to learn your faith at a level beyond which most Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter, at least many I've known) do. Heck, if you wanted to avoid confusion, perhaps the easiest option would be to be an atheist!

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

Why am I not a Muslim? For the same reasons I am not a Roman Catholic.

But if avoiding so-called confusion was the criterion (or reason) for being Orthodox you could be many, many other things just as easily. Even Catholic. If you were willing to learn your faith at a level beyond which most Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter, at least many I've known) do. Heck, if you wanted to avoid confusion, perhaps the easiest option would be to be an atheist!

I think J Michael is more concerned that you took the opportunity to lob a mud-ball at the Catholic Church, than he is about whether you are Catholic or Orthodox. You are generally pretty acerbic about the Catholic Church for someone who seems to want privacy...That behavior does tend to raise curiosity levels...FYI.

Again bringing it to my point, if it's just a gift, how is it dogmatic? How does that gift necessitate salvation?

It depends on how you understand what is "necessary to salvation"....

Most people understand it as they understand air being necessary for them to live...or food...or water...all taken separately and individually.

As I was taught something being "necessary for salvation" is a reference to one's relationship to the Church and the Church's relationship to the universal truth of revelation, from Tradition and Scripture. So it really is a reference to the wholeness or catholicity of Church teaching with each element being important in either being central to or supportive of the truths of salvation, the truths of revelation.

It is not a juridical term at all. Dogma are pieces of the truth that are defined more clearly that other parts of doctrine in order to help make them more clear to the faithful. That is their function, although they are seen as some sort of greater truth-lesser truth...or something. I really do not understand how most of you folks here see these things actually.

I have attached my notes from Seminary in regards to Dogma & Dogmatics. They tend to jump around a lot b/c the professor jumped around a lot. To me though, it's a point to start. Obviously it would seem to me to be a much bigger conversation now that we are truly delving into it. Do you WANT to delve into it? Because if you don't, i'm not going to waste your time.

Quote

The way you talk about it is very foreign to me. The fact that you insist you are right ranges my emotional responses somewhere between annoyance and amusement.

Right back at you. On all fronts. The way that this information is being presented, what it is saying, the language that is being used, are completely foreign to me. I honestly thought I was not insisting anything, but rather asking & therefore approaching the question from what I know. If you see that as an insistence, that's your personal choice. I see a question as always leaving the door open to being wrong, or seeing the issue differently. That's not insistence to me.

Quote

The only thing that gets me is that the schism is kept alive active and bleeding by attitudes that are fed by this kind of crippled understanding...not just on the Orthodox side. I hear the same kind of senseless nonsense coming from Catholics who have no experience of Orthodoxy.

It's also kept alive & bleeding by real life issues as well, such as the 4th Crusade & the sack of Constantinople. There have also been great bridges made such as the revoking of the Anathemas. I'm trying to make bridges at least for myself b/c that's the only thing I have 100% control over....me & my understanding. Just trying to better myself in this regard with my Roman Catholic brethren. If you see that as keeping something bleeding & bad attitudes...that's your choice.

I will only add this as an additional thought: We were taught in seminary that Dogmas are limited to what the ecumenical councils have said about HS, Jesus Christ and God Himself. If we have that understanding, this would make the more modern interpretation of the IC more difficult.

Yes. Let's go on. Where do you want to begin? I will try to follow your lead. Do you want to begin another thread? I am very interested in the topic of dogmatics and systematics and also I am a strong believer in the Immaculate Conception, not because I am commanded to be but because after long struggle, I have come to understand it and see how it "fits" in the wholeness of Catholic teaching...and especially after reading the holy fathers of the east, and the festal homilies and liturgies. So I don't seek to defend or be apologetic for the teaching but to share with you something that is with me at all times in prayer and in living the life of faith.

So forgive me for being hard and brittle here with you, as much as it seems I have been...It is something dear to my heart...both topics as well as the end to the schism.

I will wait to hear from you.

Mary

Mary I will have to get back to you tomorrow about this. Unfortunately I'm only posting about once a day, and then checking all my mod stuff the rest of the time.

My game plan is to try to come to some common conclusions on how dogma is understood, between the few of us here, including you & The other posters. From there my hope is once we have an agreed upon framework, we look at the big 4 through that lense. Maybe it's just a dream, but that's how I'd like to approach it. The document I provided is a place to start for me, & there are other links & docs from prior posts we can add. I will start my thoughts on it tomorrow.

Again bringing it to my point, if it's just a gift, how is it dogmatic? How does that gift necessitate salvation?

It depends on how you understand what is "necessary to salvation"....

Most people understand it as they understand air being necessary for them to live...or food...or water...all taken separately and individually.

As I was taught something being "necessary for salvation" is a reference to one's relationship to the Church and the Church's relationship to the universal truth of revelation, from Tradition and Scripture. So it really is a reference to the wholeness or catholicity of Church teaching with each element being important in either being central to or supportive of the truths of salvation, the truths of revelation.

It is not a juridical term at all. Dogma are pieces of the truth that are defined more clearly that other parts of doctrine in order to help make them more clear to the faithful. That is their function, although they are seen as some sort of greater truth-lesser truth...or something. I really do not understand how most of you folks here see these things actually.

I have attached my notes from Seminary in regards to Dogma & Dogmatics. They tend to jump around a lot b/c the professor jumped around a lot. To me though, it's a point to start. Obviously it would seem to me to be a much bigger conversation now that we are truly delving into it. Do you WANT to delve into it? Because if you don't, i'm not going to waste your time.

Quote

The way you talk about it is very foreign to me. The fact that you insist you are right ranges my emotional responses somewhere between annoyance and amusement.

Right back at you. On all fronts. The way that this information is being presented, what it is saying, the language that is being used, are completely foreign to me. I honestly thought I was not insisting anything, but rather asking & therefore approaching the question from what I know. If you see that as an insistence, that's your personal choice. I see a question as always leaving the door open to being wrong, or seeing the issue differently. That's not insistence to me.

Quote

The only thing that gets me is that the schism is kept alive active and bleeding by attitudes that are fed by this kind of crippled understanding...not just on the Orthodox side. I hear the same kind of senseless nonsense coming from Catholics who have no experience of Orthodoxy.

It's also kept alive & bleeding by real life issues as well, such as the 4th Crusade & the sack of Constantinople. There have also been great bridges made such as the revoking of the Anathemas. I'm trying to make bridges at least for myself b/c that's the only thing I have 100% control over....me & my understanding. Just trying to better myself in this regard with my Roman Catholic brethren. If you see that as keeping something bleeding & bad attitudes...that's your choice.

I will only add this as an additional thought: We were taught in seminary that Dogmas are limited to what the ecumenical councils have said about HS, Jesus Christ and God Himself. If we have that understanding, this would make the more modern interpretation of the IC more difficult.

Yes. Let's go on. Where do you want to begin? I will try to follow your lead. Do you want to begin another thread? I am very interested in the topic of dogmatics and systematics and also I am a strong believer in the Immaculate Conception, not because I am commanded to be but because after long struggle, I have come to understand it and see how it "fits" in the wholeness of Catholic teaching...and especially after reading the holy fathers of the east, and the festal homilies and liturgies. So I don't seek to defend or be apologetic for the teaching but to share with you something that is with me at all times in prayer and in living the life of faith.

So forgive me for being hard and brittle here with you, as much as it seems I have been...It is something dear to my heart...both topics as well as the end to the schism.

I will wait to hear from you.

Mary

Mary I will have to get back to you tomorrow about this. Unfortunately I'm only posting about once a day, and then checking all my mod stuff the rest of the time.

My game plan is to try to come to some common conclusions on how dogma is understood, between the few of us here, including you & The other posters. From there my hope is once we have an agreed upon framework, we look at the big 4 through that lense. Maybe it's just a dream, but that's how I'd like to approach it. The document I provided is a place to start for me, & there are other links & docs from prior posts we can add. I will start my thoughts on it tomorrow.

PS: I have downloaded the document you provided and will read it this afternoon.

Also, I have lost track of an old note, but are you ordained now as a priest, or are you a deacon...Where are you in the progress of your vocation?

M.

I was ordained a priest 1 month after my ordination to the diaconate. So I've been a priest now for 2 years. I'm an assistant priest at a huge parish.

This is a truly wonderful idea...I have read the document that you sent once and will read it again by tomorrow. There are many parts of it that had my head bobbing up and down quite positively. It is not an area of keen study for me, so I am going to be the weak link but Father Aidan will be a good source and I will try to keep up!!

It is my understanding that Ancestral Sin is the world that we are born into. A fallen and sinful world made possible by our first parents. Original Sin as the RCC teaches, is a guilt that is inherited by all humans which I do not ascribe to.

Uh...not quite. Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #396-421?

The holy innocents are part of the pure in heart for they shall see God-no purgatory-no baptism of blood-no original sin here. They didnt inherit Original sin as defined by the RCC, and they did not commit any sin by being born into a fallen world. If they had grown up a little more then they would have attained the 'age of reason' thereby exposing themselves to temptations and to sin. We believe that the Theotokos was born no differently than any of ourselves.

I think you may slightly misunderstand the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. But that dead horse has been beaten to a pulp on this board.

So they changed since I was in Catholic school? Talk about your flip flopping.

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

In deleting all the text above Mary's comment about her age ("I am older than you are Joe..."), Joe ended up also deleting the opening quote tag, so that the closing /quote tag was left widowed.

Father, I plan on getting back to you on this soon, but perhaps in the meantime can you explain what the hermeneutical model is for the RC church? Or is that part of the study links you put on page 2?

Alas, I'm afraid your request is beyond my competence. In fact, I doubt there is "one" hermeneutical model for the Roman Catholic Church, just as I doubt there is "one" hermeneutical model for the Orthodox Church.

I think J Michael is more concerned that you took the opportunity to lob a mud-ball at the Catholic Church, than he is about whether you are Catholic or Orthodox. You are generally pretty acerbic about the Catholic Church for someone who seems to want privacy...That behavior does tend to raise curiosity levels...FYI.

This article might help at a number of levels to limit and rightly orient the way hermenutics is used in Catholic thinking and doing. Hermenutics is a tool used for a specific purpose. It does not describe or define the nature of a thing, a word, or a concept. It does not provide a "working model."

I am older than you are Joe and I never was taught that original sin was any kind of personal sin guilt, so I expect...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....that you had your hearing aide turned off.

Im NOT talking about personal Guilt, but the guilt that was passed down by Adam's sin. And the Sisters of St. Joseph were very capable in teaching the faith that I was a part of at that time. The Diocesan priests also in H.S. affirmed this Guilt as well. They all cant be dummies.

That "guilt" is a short hand for the "stain"..."spot"..."blemish"...of original sin that the holy fathers talked about. Somewhere along the line in your learning somebody should have gotten beyond that language of guilt and explained to you what it is: It is the consequence of original sin for the person which is the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will and the memory. IF you were not taught then it would have been up to you to do what I did, and many others like me did, which was to ask: What does that mean?...and then take the energy and effort to go find out.

I am weary of Catholics who have no understanding of their Church's teachings beyond the 8th grade and who whine and complain because they are told their faith is about as ripe an full as a 13 year olds.

We all have the responsibility to go and find out....on our own...regardless of what we were taught as children, or young adults.

Why am I not a Muslim? For the same reasons I am not a Roman Catholic.

But if avoiding so-called confusion was the criterion (or reason) for being Orthodox you could be many, many other things just as easily. Even Catholic. If you were willing to learn your faith at a level beyond which most Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter, at least many I've known) do. Heck, if you wanted to avoid confusion, perhaps the easiest option would be to be an atheist!

I have my reasons and I prefer to keep them private.....Thank you[/quote]

If you, JoeS2, are Orthodox and content in your Orthodoxy, I'm happy for you. My concern is exactly as Mary depicted it, plus it just seems to me that to choose, or remain in one's faith on the basis of "it avoids confusion" is establishing a foundation of sand rather than rock. I'm sure you have your reasons, Joe, as you say and if you want to keep them to yourself I certainly have no objection. But it'd be gracious of you if you would leave off with the "mud-balls".

This article might help at a number of levels to limit and rightly orient the way hermenutics is used in Catholic thinking and doing. Hermenutics is a tool used for a specific purpose. It does not describe or define the nature of a thing, a word, or a concept. It does not provide a "working model."

Usage has restricted the meaning of hermeneutics to the science of Biblical exegesis, that is, to the collection of rules which govern the right interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

since the IC has no basis in the Bible, and hence there is nothing to exegete, what help can the article provide?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This article might help at a number of levels to limit and rightly orient the way hermenutics is used in Catholic thinking and doing. Hermenutics is a tool used for a specific purpose. It does not describe or define the nature of a thing, a word, or a concept. It does not provide a "working model."

Whenever somebody interprets a dogmatic pronouncement in one way, and you disagree, interpreting it in another way, you are engaging in hermeneutics. You in fact have a hermeneutic model that you follow (as we all do), because of certain given assumptions you have about the meaning of certain words and phrases, as well as assumptions you make about how certain genres of texts should be interpreted (and of course, we all make these assumptions for the sake of coherence and consistency), even if it is not apparent to you that you are following any sort of model or method.

« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 12:11:42 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Father, I plan on getting back to you on this soon, but perhaps in the meantime can you explain what the hermeneutical model is for the RC church? Or is that part of the study links you put on page 2?

Alas, I'm afraid your request is beyond my competence. In fact, I doubt there is "one" hermeneutical model for the Roman Catholic Church, just as I doubt there is "one" hermeneutical model for the Orthodox Church.

Did you happen to get to glance at the document I posted above? It's from my Dogmatics class at Holy Cross. I'd definitely be curious to read your take on it.

PS: I have downloaded the document you provided and will read it this afternoon.

I think i'd like to do this one step at a time. So let's take a look at the first paragraph:

Quote

Dogmas become authoritative decrees. Connected with presence of HS. They communicate the experience and understanding of the church, of who is God. They are grounded in God’s revelation as we find it in the Scriptures and as it was lived by the church, especially in its liturgical assembly.

My concern is exactly as Mary depicted it, plus it just seems to me that to choose, or remain in one's faith on the basis of "it avoids confusion" is establishing a foundation of sand rather than rock.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but in any case I agree with what you said.

PS: I have downloaded the document you provided and will read it this afternoon.

I think i'd like to do this one step at a time. So let's take a look at the first paragraph:

Quote

Dogmas become authoritative decrees. Connected with presence of HS. They communicate the experience and understanding of the church, of who is God. They are grounded in God’s revelation as we find it in the Scriptures and as it was lived by the church, especially in its liturgical assembly.

Any opposition to this?

Fr. Aidan?

Father, do you think it might be helpful to start a new thread, perhaps under a title like "What is dogma?"

PS: I have downloaded the document you provided and will read it this afternoon.

I think i'd like to do this one step at a time. So let's take a look at the first paragraph:

Quote

Dogmas become authoritative decrees. Connected with presence of HS. They communicate the experience and understanding of the church, of who is God. They are grounded in God’s revelation as we find it in the Scriptures and as it was lived by the church, especially in its liturgical assembly.

Any opposition to this?

Fr. Aidan?

Father, do you think it might be helpful to start a new thread, perhaps under a title like "What is dogma?"

PS: I have downloaded the document you provided and will read it this afternoon.

I think i'd like to do this one step at a time. So let's take a look at the first paragraph:

Quote

Dogmas become authoritative decrees. Connected with presence of HS. They communicate the experience and understanding of the church, of who is God. They are grounded in God’s revelation as we find it in the Scriptures and as it was lived by the church, especially in its liturgical assembly.

Any opposition to this?

Fr. Aidan?

Father, do you think it might be helpful to start a new thread, perhaps under a title like "What is dogma?"